Viewport width =
August 6, 2007 | by  | in Opinion |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

“Live Earth = Dead Brains”

A few weeks back I sent out the following press release to coincide with that meeting of anti-minds called “Live Earth”:

Live Earth = Dead Brains

The weekend’s Live Earth concerts across the globe brought together a suitably motley array of dimwitted headbangers and caterwaulers whose noise pollution is proof positive that screaming skulls destroy their own brains, says Sense of Life Objectivists (SOLO) principal Lindsay Perigo.

“Bands who build careers on destroying the faculty of hearing with their technologically amplified jungle cacophonies joined together in a global campaign against the system that liberated science and made possible the technology on which they rely—capitalism—in favour of returning to the jungles and caves from which these addled specimens looked as though they’d barely emerged.

“Ostensibly, Live Earth was intended to awaken the world to the dangers of man-made Global Warming. The inconvenient truth for the caterwaulers and their guru, Al Gore, is that the earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time, peskily independent of human beings. And it is these cyclical temperature changes, as indicated by real science uncorrupted by United Nations agendas, that influence CO2 levels, not the other way round. The temperature changes in turn are determined by solar activity. Perhaps when they’re done trying to ban capitalist activities among consenting adults on earth, the ecofascists will try to outlaw the sun?

“If these troglodytes don’t commit suicide from depression induced by their deathly shriekings, they may live to see the Earth cool again—in which case they could mount crusades against an imminent man-made Ice Age, as their ilk were doing a mere three decades ago,” Perigo observes.

“In the meantime, sensible, life-loving folk should enjoy the warmer temperatures while they last—and continue to savour and celebrate the blessings of capitalism and freedom.”

Needless to say, because it spoke the truth, the press release was ignored by the mainstream media. The MSM wallowed in an orgy of Gore-and-Gaia-worship even as evidence mounted that we may already be well into a new cooling period in the earth’s temperature cycles. From The Sunday Telegraph, July 22, 2007:

“A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago. During this same period, however, the graph of CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa Observatory has continued a consistent rise. If rising CO2 inexorably means rising temperatures, what happened to those temperatures?”

Salient readers should go here for details: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

Here, as a matter of interest, are four headlines from The New York Times over the past 80-odd years, capturing the ebb and flow of cooling and warming as alternating sources of apocalyptic hysteria regarding climate change:
September 18, 1924: “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”
March 27, 1933: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776.”
May 21, 1975: “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” (The Washington Post had already heralded the dawn of a new Ice Age, as had Fortune magazine, which had written, in February 1974: “As for the present cooling trend, a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed. It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude.”)
December 27, 2005: “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax about New Warming.”

All quite a hoot, really. As the late Augie Auer, TV 3’s erudite and colourful meteorologist for many years, observed – we’ll be looking back and laughing at this Global Warming hysteria in five years’ time. Or will we? This time, vote-grubbing politicians, aided and abetted by the ignorance of the rabble and a fascist media, are competing with each other to see who can come up with the most draconian regulations by means of which to close down industrial civilization—which is the Green agenda.

“Fascist media” is over the top, you say? Listen to this, from CBS’s Scott Pelley, who likens Global Warming Sceptics to Holocaust Deniers who should not be given air-time: “There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible.”

Meanwhile, Martin Durkin’s magnificent and exceptionally courageous documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle (link on SOLOPassion.com), continues to open the eyes of the blind who want to see. It has aired in Britain and Australia, but you may be sure State TV1 and State TV3 won’t be screening it here any time soon. Among other things, it quotes the founder of Greenpeace, whose eyes had already been opened, as saying the current Green movement is “anti-human.”

My personal recommendation to those who think that humanity and human activity are a blight on the planet is that they should speak for themselves—and remove themselves accordingly and forthwith.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Comments (48)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. adam says:

    ‘Ignored because it spoke the truth’? Plenty of global warming sceptics have had pieces published in the mainstream press. Maybe it is more to do with the fact that you seem incapable of making a point without resorting to school yard name calling. How do you expect to make more converts to the Randian Cult if you keep abusing them?

    Otherwise, it is always good to hear an alternative voice. Although, your unqualified praise of capitalism is quite naive (although I realise this is a central tenet for the Cult). While I am also sceptical of the promoted causes of global warming, it does not take an ecofascist to see that capitalism, unrestrained by any kind of moral values, can lead to irredeemable cultural and ecological destruction. Although, I am sure you are quite happy to see such things as the Amazon and the ‘superstitious’ tribes that inhabit wiped out. (By the way, I am no Socialist.)

  2. Jean-Michel says:

    Why is this man still writing for Salient? I sincerely hope that next year’s editor brings in a “Vic students only” policy when forming his or her Salient team.

  3. Tushara Kodiara says:

    Why are our student (VUWSA) fees paying for Salient to publish this shit? At least I know that any VUWSA fees that students pay on me are well worth it. It doesn’t matter if the uninformed opinions of others think otherwise.

    Steve should let me write an article on why this piece of drivel is wrong, but I gather this editor, who is paid by students, thinks that factual information on climate change is not an issue important enough for students, even though the university believes so, and is currently conducting an environmental audit on its own carbon foot print, with help from me. (I am currently writing up my Masters on Carbon emissions reduction at VUW)

    Maybe the students should at least know what the uni is up to.

    Perigo and Adam… go read a book

  4. Glenn says:

    Rather than telling us what you aren’t, Adam, it would be far less wishy-washy to tell us what you ARE?

    May I suggest you read at least one book on capitalism that hasn’t been written by a Keynesian before you make a callow remark like, “…your unqualified praise of capitalism is quite naive…” to a scholar who’s well versed in both sides of the argument.

    Hayek (Nobel Prize laureate in Economics) would be a good start – I think von Mises might be over your head. You say, “…capitalism, unrestrained by any kind of moral values, can lead to irredeemable cultural and ecological destruction.” Yeah? Then how do you explain the objective fact that countries with even a modicum of capitalism out-perform countries with none in every single aspect of human achievement? On closer inspection you will discover that capitalism (the voluntary exchange of value for value) is THE MOST moral of any economic system.

    It’s quite telling that you failed to mention which system you DO advocate.

    Jean-Michel (Français, peut-être?)… upsetting your cosy socialist world is he?

    Tushara Kodiara… upsetting your plans to join the pseudo-scientists sucking on the taxpayer’s tit is he?

    Watch the documentary, TK, then come back and refute THAT “factual information on climate change.” Just because your university is wasting your precious fees on history’s greatest hoax doesn’t make it fact.

  5. Jean-Michel says:

    Glenn is furious.

  6. Jean-Michel says:

    Yeah, Perigo just fucking ROCKED MY WORLD, MAN. TORE IT LIMB FROM LIMB. BODY PARTS AND COPIES OF THE KARAN TORN ASUNDER UNDER THE MIGHT OF HURRICANE PERIGO, ROLLING THROUGH THE COUNTRYSIDE OF SALIENT RAINING DOWN ACID UPON EVERYONE, WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY OF STUDENTS SHRUG THEIR SHOULDERS AND TEXT THEIR FRIENDS ASKING WHAT TIME THEIR LAW 122 TUTE IS.

    Also, Perigo is fat. Fat people shouldn’t be allowed to do anything, let alone write for Salient.

  7. Ricky says:

    I’d fuck Perigo.

  8. Tushara Kodiara says:

    I have watched the pseudo-science film. Glen, I also have a degree in science, majoring in chemistry. “pseudo-scientists” eh? Glenn, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I really don’t care.

    Ask yourself why the movie uses so-called up to date data, from the early nineties. You need to read a book as well. Start by learning the difference between peer-reviewed science, and science spouted out by economist.

  9. Tushara Kodiara says:

    Just so you understand… I am not going to write anything further on whether climate is happening, or if it is human induced… If you don’t believe so, that is your opinion… after all… every asshole has an opinion….

    If you really believe it’s a big left-wing conspiracy, then you are truly deluded. It’s so sad.

  10. Glenn says:

    It’s not a left-wing conspiracy, Tush (though the Marx is beaming in his grave): it’s coming from eco-nazis on both sides of the left-right spectrum, united in their anti-human ideo-hysteria, who seriously want us to believe that man’s 0.005% contribution to greenhouse gases is something for us to feel guilty about.

    Incidentally, do you refute the latest CO2/Global Temperature anomaly?

    You could play snooker with that hockey stick!! :-)

  11. Glenn says:

    … and Jean-Michel thinks I’M angry… sheesh!! So French – just like a croissant: a little bit flaky and a little bit gay.

    By the way, what the fuck is a KARAN? You referring to something made by DONNA, Mr. Hissyfit?

  12. dirk says:

    Racist

  13. adam says:

    “how do you explain the objective fact that countries with even a modicum of capitalism out-perform countries with none in every single aspect of human achievement?”

    I was not advocating the destruction of capitalism; I was merely recognising the ill effects it has caused as well. Which would include the great ‘human achievement’ of steamrolling over traditional cultures and rampant environmental destruction. Of course, this does not negate other more beneficial impacts it has had. Fire burns down houses and causes deaths, but I would not stop people from using it to heat their homes or cook food.

    As for what I stand for; I am still negotiating various schools of thought. I find most of them have flaws of one kind or another, so I am unwilling to cling to any dogma, as Perigo has.

    And thanks for the references; will put von Mises on my ‘to read’ list.

  14. “Why is this man still writing for Salient? I sincerely hope that next year’s editor brings in a “Vic students only” policy when forming his or her Salient team.”

    Maybe in future you should attack the arguement, not the person.

  15. Glenn says:

    Good on you, Adam…

    May I suggest you start with George Riesman’s book “Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics”…? As you dive deeper into the subject you’ll discover that all the perceived ills of capitalism come from anti-capitalist ideologies rampant in mixed economies.

    As for the poor bastards in Third World “traditional cultures”, I’m sure they’d rather be trading with businessmen than bargaining with the warlords who have been running the show since before Adam was even a twinkle in Mrs. Smith’s eye. :-)

  16. Glenn says:

    Nice one, Nick!

    Who are you calling racist, Dick?

  17. Mitch says:

    Er, you posted that twice.

  18. Mitch says:

    Er, you posted that twice. :)

  19. Mitch says:

    *Sarcasm On*

    Who does this Perigo guy think he is!? (I bet that isn’t even his real name). Next he’ll be telling us the Earth is round. Fucken fruitloop.

    “Why is this man still writing for Salient? I sincerely hope that next year’s editor brings in a “Vic students only” policy when forming his or her Salient team.”

    I agree with Croissant, how can this man speak the disgustingly offensive truth and be allowed to get away with it!? I’d much prefer the labotomy and padded cell of the Mainstream Media. By the way, I hope the new editor is transgender, or better yet, a hermaphrodite. That would be SOOO inclusive.

    “Glenn, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I really don’t care.” “after all… every asshole has an opinion….” “If you really believe it’s a big left-wing conspiracy, then you are truly deluded. It’s so sad.”

    Yeah Glenn, you just got “owned”! So “owned” that “I am not going to write anything further”

    It’s so sad that you have an opinion that I don’t care about. And I’m not going to write anything further either, cause that might constitute honest debate. Pffft, you’re just deluded.

    *Sarcasm off*

    As per usual, the objective is to shut down the debate. Cherry pick the “offensive” bits from Perigo’s column while bypassing the substance, and use it as an excuse to start name calling. If these opinions are an indication of the general student population’s views, then Perigo shouldn’t be writing in Salient. You goddamwell don’t deserve it.

  20. Robert says:

    Why are your VUWSA fees being used to allow (insert name of nemesis) to publish in Salient?

    One could also wonder why TAX-PAYER money is being used to educate persons such as yourself who are militantly oppose free speech – but I digress…

    The U in VU stands for University does it not? Last I checked, Universities were not just seats of learning, they were places where ideas — even ones that an individual might disagree with — were freely exchanged.

    Banning Perigo or anyone else you dislike from publishing in Salient isn’t going to stop them. It is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and shutting your eyes. If reality is on your side, you should be able to shoot-down Perigo’s argument with a better one. That, by the way, is the only way to kill a bad idea.

    So what is it to be VU students? Will you stick your fingers in your ears and try and drown out Perigo with expletives and calls to ban him from your campus? Or will you actually use some of that research training you are supposed to be getting and make an argument?

    My bet is that you will do the former.

  21. Ricky says:

    Perigo is trash throw him in the bin

  22. Ricky says:

    (psst, I think the argument is more to do with the fact that somebody outside of Victoria is writing for Salient. Couldn’t we find a right-wing conservative student to do what Perigo’s doing here? I mean, this is a student magazine written by students for students, right? No problem with the argument being put “out there”, just a problem with the fact it’s coming from outside Vic.)

  23. Entertianing but... says:

    It’s good to hear an alternate point of view, but unfortunately Perigo is unable to self introspect his own arguments as he requires his opponents to do, and in doing so he just becomes the ‘anti-Bradford’, as predictable and illogical as the most militant greenie socialist. His strict adherence to the flawed and naive Randian dogma only serves to reinforce the ‘nutter’ persona, he and his followers are unable to differentiate between eloquence and intelligence. This is a shame as he is an entertaining writer and broadcaster and expresses a view that is needs to be expressed.

  24. Tushara Kodikara says:

    Okay, I will debate this topic, if any climate sceptic here can come up with any scientific argument that disproves human induced climate change, not any argument that has already been proven wrong. Climate sceptics constantly repeat arguments with little scientific backing.

    I really don’t care about any libertarian’s clique opinion that human induced climate change isn’t real… it’s really boring.

  25. Tushara says:

    Dear Robert,

    Aren’t I allowed to question why my VUWSA fees are going to pay for allowing Perigo to publish this shit? This is my money going to pay for this, I am not “militantly oppose to free speech”

    This is my right and freedom to question. That is what freedom means, the right to question what my money is going on… oh poor tax payer

    Tushara

  26. Ricky says:

    Okay, fine, let Perigo have his column, but could you please re-name it “Hurricane Perigo”, with “Rampaging Across the Countryside of Salient” as a subtitle? Thanks, guys.

  27. Nick H says:

    Tushara, you can’t prove that something (i.e human activity) doesn’t influence something else (climate change). That’s bad science.

  28. Greg says:

    historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.

    Don’t you get it yet? These scientists are all on the fucking payroll. It ain’t worth the paper it’s written on.!!

  29. CMR says:

    False science Tushara? You want a debate on humanity induced climate change?

    I quote you…”Climate sceptics constantly repeat arguments with little scientific backing.”

    What a wonderfully ill-conceived sentence to open a debate!

    1 Do you know ALL climate sceptics?
    2 What degree of research constitutes or fails to constitue a meritworthy quantum of scientific backing?
    3 The expression of the apparently decrepit (in your less than humble opinion) arguments are “constantly” repeated? Again, how do you know?

    Tushara, I conclude that you are a lazy apology for a scientist and not a fit combatant for anything approaching a reasoned debate. I suggest you study hard, study very hard, and in your spare time learn to curb your infantile haughtiness!

  30. Brendan says:

    “A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago.”

    Hmm. Here’s what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has to say about its figures for 2007: “The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest on record for the January-June six-month period.
    Separately, the global January-June land-surface temperature was warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature was the sixth warmest in the 128-year period of record”.

    And: “Above average temperatures covered much of the world’s land surfaces during the first half of the year. While some land areas in the Southern Hemisphere began the June-August winter season with below average temperatures, it was the warmest June on record at the South Pole.”
    (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2890.htm)

    So how does Sunday Telegraph op-ed columnist Christopher Booker manage to convince himself that 2007 global temperatures have fallen back to those of 1983? A quick glance at the site referenced by Lindsay Perigo will show that Booker has cherry-picked the data and spun it to fit his prejudices.

    (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html)

    Booker focuses on a graph showing mid-troposphere temperatures. He cites 1983 as his year of comparison because that year shows an upward spike in the data, and thus biases the comparison to suit his purpose. However, the averaged temperature line shows quite a different picture, although for various reasons, troposphere temperatures have not risen as much as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory.

    But troposphere temperatures are only one piece of evidence. The surface data shows a steadily rising trend in global temperatures, with the 2007 averages well above 1983. Booker chooses to ignore this data because it doesn’t support his case.

    It’s a pity that some opinion columnists are content to mindlessly regurgitate the spin of other opinion columnists. Fortunately, the facts are available for those who take the initiative to think for themselves.

  31. CMR says:

    I assume you perceive me to be a climate skeptic (sic).? On what grounds? That I perceive another correspondent to be lazy and less than humble?

    I am not a climate sceptic specifically. What I am is a first instance sceptic? I have been comprehensively dissuaded by zealots of the opposing camps that either argument is conclusive. As a result of this frustrating state of affairs can I be definitively expected to rely on “peer review?” To be judged by an incompetent peerage is not to be judged at all! ( I think the last sentence is a quote from Richard Phillips Feynman though I am not certain of this.)

    You refer to a “pay-roll” in your final invective laden mutterings. Do you know what a pay-roll is? I would be surprised, if not stunned, that you have the cognitive ability to retain any form of employment! You seem to prefer insinuations and feelings…at what time did the exercise of reason desert this university?

  32. Ricky says:

    what’s lindsay perigo’s favourite ride at the fair? the perigo-round.

  33. Mitch says:

    Tell me ‘perigo=dead brain’, are you one year out of school or two? Just when the debate was starting to somewhat address the issue, YOU have to pipe up. Why?

    Tushara: “Okay, I will debate this topic, if any climate sceptic here can come up with any scientific argument that disproves human induced climate change, not any argument that has already been proven wrong. Climate sceptics constantly repeat arguments with little scientific backing.”

    Mate, the onus of proof is on you. The Earth’s climate has been changing naturally for millions of years. You can’t just turn around one day and say it is Man’s fault, and then tell others to disprove you or else they are wrong. A scientist eh?

    Brendan: “However, the averaged temperature line shows quite a different picture, although for various reasons, troposphere temperatures have not risen as much as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory.”

    You have shot your argument down all by yourself Brendan. According to the AGW (and greenhouse) theory, the troposphere temperature should be rising at a higher rate than the Earth’s surface. That the troposphere temperature is NOT rising “as it should be” is a MAJOR dent in the theory, so don’t gloss over it. Care to explain your “various reasons”?

    The AGW theory is falling apart. No causation in the ice cores from CO2 to temperature increases (instead the other way around), temperatures have peaked and are now FALLING (even though CO2 levels are still rising at the same rate), and more and more “sceptics” are popping out of the woodwork (with good reason). Give it 5 more years tops. Hopefully the politicians and the enviro-nuts don’t get their way before then.

  34. Brendan says:

    Mitch: “That the troposphere temperature is NOT rising “as it should be” is a MAJOR dent in the theory, so don’t gloss over it. Care to explain your “various reasons”?”

    What I said was that “troposphere temperatures have not risen as much as predicted”. But of course it is still warming, so far from denting the theory, it supports it. And for most of the atmosphere, troposphere temperatures are rising as quickly as the surface temperature, in line with AGW theory. In addition, the stratosphere is cooling, also in line with AGW theory.

    The “various reasons” are primarily to do with satellite measurement, which is complicated because of the decay of the satellite orbits, calibrating records from different instruments, trying to separate the signals by layer of atmosphere and so on.

    Earlier measurements failed to sufficiently take into account these factors, and it appeared the troposphere was not warming in line with the surface. These factors have now been accounted for, and the resulting measurements are one more item to add to the growing list of evidence in favour of AGW theory.

    The claim that temperatures have peaked and are now FALLING (or perhaps just plain ‘falling’) is a long bow – the same could have been said of the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, but here we are in 2007 with higher average temperatures, despite those previous so-called falling temperatures.

    Far from falling apart, AGW theory is strengthening as time goes by.

  35. CMR says:

    Perigo=brain dead

    What HAVE I done in the real world?

    I employ in excess of 1400 people in my own self-initiated business. Yes, you are right…that makes me a “fuckhead” whatever that is. Please explain in your usual sub-human fashion.

    You could make a “difference” to the benefit of all correspondents…migrate to a country where considered debate is outlawed. There are numerous choices!

  36. Nick H says:

    A little science in the hands of laypeople is a dangerous thing.

  37. dirk says:

    I’m calling you a racist Glenn, and suggesting your homophobic and anti-French posting be removed from these message boards.

  38. Andrew Seedney says:

    How can the world be warming with all this wetness at VUW to cool it down? Surely with pomo-wankers like adam there’s a radiator effect where hot air is cooled by all the wetness, accounting for Wgtn’s shite weather?

    BTW, given that the tech boom carried on into 2001 and that China, Brazil and India among others have seen a massive increase in economic activity this decasde – all relying on electric power (chiefly coal-fired) – why have global temperatures not continued to rise since 1998? A slight up-tick in Jan-Jun ’07 doesn’t reconcile this.

    Why was the warming in the early 20th C sharper than during the 1970s to 1990s period?

    Why did the Earth cool sharply from the end of WWII to the 1970s when economic activity grew strongly around the world (you may recall there was a “Great Depression” prior to WWII)?

    BTW dork – I think you’ll find racism refers to discriminating against people because of their race (or ethnicity, if you like) rather than their nationality.

  39. Andrew Seedney says:

    Apologies for the typo – I meant dirk, not dork.

  40. dirk says:

    Hurr hur

    Anyway, the basic fact is that it is a derogatory comment made on the basis of a person or group’s nationality. That typically falls within the grounds of racism and if not it should still be removed from these message boards.

  41. Greg says:

    ATTN BRENDAN:
    You say for various reasons, troposphere temperatures have not risen as much as predicted by anthropogenic global warming theory.
    That’s dead right man! Cos it’s still only a theory. And the (computer model !!) predictions are so far-fetched. This debate recalls the old School Certificate exam marking system when 50% fail always. I suggest the failures are nowadays the suckers for this crackpot AGW theory.

  42. Peter says:

    Gravity is only a theory too.. so greg why don’t you jump of a tall bridge and prove this theory of you have about theory’s.

    Climate skeptics… stop googling climate skeptic sites, repeating the tried old arguments. The last nail in the climate skeptic coffin was hammered in a while ago. The coffin has so many nails in it, it’s time to move on. You guys are so five years ago. You guys should now be arguing that it doesn’t matter, as technology will fix it.

  43. Brendan says:

    “Cos it’s still only a theory. And the (computer model !!) predictions are so far-fetched.”

    Any scientific theory is “only” a theory. Evolution is a scientific theory, one that is well attested, but a theory nonetheless. And scientific theories are models of reality.

    As for far-fetched predictions, it’s hard to believe that time could slow or objects foreshorten, or whole continents shift thousands of kilometres across the globe.

    Fact is, a lack of imagination has nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of a scientific theory. What counts is the evidence in favour or against. You have presented no such evidence.

  44. Bryan says:

    The racist “Glenn” and others are plants from Perigo’s site. Perigo thrives on attention and conflict. Do not feed the ego – ignore him completely. To do otherwise is to give him what he wants.

  45. dirk says:

    How about remove him from this website and then we can ignore him even better.

  46. seann says:

    TK Said: “Why are our student (VUWSA) fees paying for Salient to publish this shit?”

    ANSWER: Because student fees are payfor Salient, i.e. ‘shit’.

  47. seann says:

    TK Said: “Why are our student (VUWSA) fees paying for Salient to publish this shit?”

    ANSWER: Because student fees are paying for Salient; i.e. Shit

  48. Ian says:

    I love this comment board. Such hatred. Such drama. Such passion.

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport
1

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge